bioshockfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Two questions: BioShock Infinite ending and Burial at Sea's "revelation"
Hey there, I get the story, but not some important details, so I hope you can help me out with them. :S On the ending, Elizabeth's' are drowning Booker. Are they at the "first world"? I mean, the Booker they're drowning's actually that one who's the dad of Anna, so what's the point of killing him? It has to be the "first world", hasn't it? I don't get this one. Also, Elizabeth doesn't disappear after his death. She's the last Elizabeth, because of the quantum superposition... well? BaS: : "After drowning Booker DeWitt, Elizabeth travels to a universe containing the last surviving Comstock. The same quantum superposition that saved her from blinking out of existence after the drowning of Dewitt also left her the last Elizabeth and he the last Comstock. The whole story then replays itself from the beginning but the original Elizabeth is there." Okay, that means in BSI you're the original Booker and the original Comstock and the original Elizabeth..? So, I wonder why he's the last Comstock when everything is infinite. In short: Why is it necessary to drown Booker, why is that an end to every Elizabeths except for the one we know, why is there still one last Comstock and not countless of them (I think that's the same question as the first and second one). Yeah, it seems that I have many questions which are all the same, lol. Except for the "first world" thing at the beginning of my questions. I'll finish BaS Ep 2 today, probably, but I would like to clear this questions before I do. Is it maybe simply wrong to want one absolutely logical and full explained story or did I overlook a very, very serious detail? I would be very grateful if you're able to explain all that things to me. I've read the articles here but the questions here are still not answered. :) Greetings, [[User:Fenrisúlfr|'Fenris']] [[[User_talk:Fenrisúlfr|'Diskussion']]] 17:17, September 26, 2015 (UTC) Theres no point in assuming logic in the story/plot because they picked and chose and fabricated whatever they needed for the plot they wanted. In Quantum Mechanics there is no Time Travel -- only possibility might be that you go sideways to a separate universe running an offset of the time of events - but notice THAT is a separate world (assuming the basic framework of that theory system). Similarly if they (plotwise) assume that changes in one universe affect another and they drown Booker, then how can they show Booker with the crib at the end if he's dead long before?? Internal Inconsistancy is how one game reviewer put it. Infinite Infinitely diverging Universes is the theory which was proposed to explain the wave collapse of light to particles (while breaking various fundamental understanding for the rest of physics) and it is nebulous enough that they can make it whatever they want and still sound 'sciencey' . It might've been better if they didnt try to 'explain' the fake science so much and instead worked on character stories or better combat mechanisms. 20:06, September 28, 2015 (UTC) That particular terminology describing Elizabeth as "original" is poor. It would be better and more accurate to say same Elizabeth as the one at the end of BSI. (There really is no such things as an Original Elizabeth or Booker) "Our" Elizabeth survived the end of BSI because of the Grandfather Paradox created when she killed Booker. She exists, but does not exist at the same time. (Paradox is by it's very nature illogical and does not make sense. Tropes Link | http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrandfatherParadox ) This is known as being in a state of Quantum Superposition. The same as Schrodinger's Cat. It's necessary to drown Booker because at the Last Baptism he is EVERY Booker that could become a Comstock, but with the Booker we play as in control. Kill him before he makes the decision at the Baptism and there can be no Comstock (except the one in Rapture who was in another reality and cut off from the effects of reality being reset). sm